Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Google hit with job discrimination lawsuit

  1. #1
    Vice Chairwoman, Joint Chieftess of Staff nickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Jeterville, NYY
    Posts
    17,889

    Google hit with job discrimination lawsuit

    Google hit with job discrimination lawsuit
    Published: July 27, 2005, 12:31 PM PDT
    By Dawn Kawamoto
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com

    A former Google sales executive has filed a lawsuit against the search giant, alleging it engaged in job discrimination while she was pregnant with quadruplets.

    Christina Elwell, who was promoted to national sales director in late 2003, alleges her supervisor began discriminating against her in May 2004, a month after informing him of her pregnancy and the medical complications she was encountering, according to the lawsuit filed July 17 in a U.S. District Court in New York.

    Job discrimination lawsuits are nothing new for corporate America, even for companies like Google, whose founders built a company with the motto "don't be evil."

    Google and attorneys for Elwell did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

    According to the lawsuit, Elwell's supervisor, Timothy Armstrong, Google's vice president of national sales, became concerned about her inability to travel for several weeks due to complications with her pregnancy. And in May 2004, he allegedly showed Elwell an organizational chart, in which her position had been deleted and asked her to accept a position in Google's operations department.

    But Elwell, who also lost two of her four unborn children that month, told Armstrong she viewed the position as a demotion and one that would not require any of the sales skills she acquired over a 15-year history.

    Within a week of this discussion, Elwell's proposal to move from being a national sales director to an East Coast regional sales director was rejected by Armstrong, who appointed a salesman that Elwell had previously trained and who had no Internet sales experience, according to the lawsuit.

    "Armstrong called Elwell into his office and told her that she was an HR nightmare and that he no longer wanted her in the New York office," according to the lawsuit, noting Armstrong allegedly expressed concern that Elwell was discussing her situation with co-workers and views that her pregnancy was the reason for his actions.

    A day after meeting in his office, Armstrong called Elwell on the phone and fired her, saying she "did not understand the direction the company was taking and that she had spoken to others," according to the lawsuit.

    After meeting with an employee in Google's human resources department in mid-June 2004 to discuss her severance package, Elwell received an e-mail from Google executive Shona Brown who offered to reinstate Elwell to the operations position.

    Previous Next But also in the e-mail, Brown allegedly accused Elwell's husband of "acting under false pretenses by telling Google that Elwell was having a health crisis," according to the lawsuit.

    After Google's director of human resources, Stacy Sullivan, contacted Elwell and told her she had been terminated improperly, Elwell accepted the operations position, even though she viewed it as a demotion.

    On June 29, Elwell lost the third child of the unborn quadruplets.

    Two days after Elwell's return to work on July 19, she was ordered by doctors to "remain out of work due to the stressful circumstances created by Google and Armstrong, which were putting her already high-risk pregnancy at further risk," according to the lawsuit.

    Elwell went on disability leave, and while on leave gave birth to the remaining quadruplet.

    On Aug. 18, the day before Google's long-awaited IPO debuted, Elwell filed a discrimination complaint against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Elwell returned to work in January, following maternity leave, and was informed she would have to take the "low-level operations position" that was offered prior to her disability leave, rather than a sales position. She refused to accept the job and was discharged from Google, according to the lawsuit.
    http://news.com.com/Google+hit+with+...ag=cnetfd.buzz

  2. #2
    ...she was ordered by doctors to "remain out of work due to the stressful circumstances created by Google and Armstrong, which were putting her already high-risk pregnancy at further risk," ...
    B.S.

    Google will probably settle, but if they don't, their lawyers are going to rip Elwell's doctor a new one. This kind of inflammatory diagnosis tends to be frowned upon by the board.
    Five years...

  3. #3
    Chief of Naval Operations brainsmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    woah... why is welfareloser here with me so early in the morning and more importantly why am I wearing her clothes?!?
    Posts
    13,761
    did someone call my name?
    **********************************
    DCM #1 (Founder)





    "Nobody beats Vitus Gerulaitis 18 times in a row." - Vitus Gerulaitis on beating Jimmy Connors after 17 failed attempts.

  4. #4
    Secretary of Defense DarkFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Chillin' N Da 'Hood
    Posts
    35,020
    I'm just wondering... did the "operations job" come with a pay cut? If so, then I can really understand where she was coming from... however if her pay was the same, well... geez. What more could they do?

    Granted... being pregnant with quads is no easy thing, but seriously that probably would put her out of the picture for quite some time. The Gubment does stuff like this all the time.... as they move folks to wherever they see fit and I'm sure other jobs do the same. I guess she just felt that "sales" was all that she could do... and was what she was good at? Enough to make her want to sue over it...


    Then again... with the "sue happy" culture that we live in, maybe she's lookin for a quick way to feed her family.


    DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
    Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)

  5. #5
    Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    818
    i'm with DF on this one, if the operations job came with a pay cut then i think she has a right to sue. on an entirely different note, i'm glad that she had at least one of the babies... it must have been devastating to lose 3 of 4.

  6. #6
    Vice Chairwoman, Joint Chieftess of Staff nickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Jeterville, NYY
    Posts
    17,889
    it sounds like a mess of she-said versus they-said, and unclear intentions, but i'll bet Google will come out the loser.

  7. #7
    Unfortuinately, the way sales persons are compensated differs significantly from operations. Frequently sales departments are given large bonuses based on their performance.
    An operations job might have the same salary, but wouldn't receive that kind of bonus. Not that it's really relivent, the bonus would be difficult for her to get because she would not be performing at her peak because of medical conditions.
    An important consideration is that a woman having a difficult pregnancy would be unable, in most cases, to fufill the responsabilities of a sales executive. The company would lose a significant amount of revinue due to her inability to travel. Furthermore, it would be difficult to maintain an appropriate businesslike demenor while pregnant with quadriplets. Sales is also a highly stressful environment. Google was attempting to be helpful in offering her a position that she could still perform well in while pregnant.

    There is also the posibility that she wasn't performing her job up to expectations to begin with and when Google became aware of her condition they decided to mover her to a less critical area instead of firing her outright.

    One last point is that she was not a rank and file worker. She was an executive. It was one of her responsabilities to ensure the health of the company. When she became detrimental to the health of the company she should have been aware of it and willing to take steps to correct it.

  8. #8
    I love free! cheapchinese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    LA, California
    Posts
    2,998
    dude... just stay home on maternity leave

    it was her choice to have the baby.....I don't get it why a company could get sued for demoting her. If she can't perform the duty(high stress...doctor suggestion), then why stay at that position. Just face it, she made a choice to have babies...With quads it looks like she went to the clinic to have that done.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •